Tim Dunlop on new Australian anti-terror laws (allowing for things like detaining a person for fourteen days without charge, entering premises and seizing property without a warrant, etc):

So there it is, the voguing session is over but the voguing continues. We have, as Peter Beattie put it, “draconian but necessary” new laws, and while the draconian bit is obvious, no-one has seen fit to explain why these new laws are necessary beyond saying things like the threat is unprecedented (not true) or that Britain does it (evidence against the effectiveness of such laws).

Getting away from this kind of crap seems like a good reason to look forward to the move to NZ, which while not devoid of political FUD at least isn’t compelled to foster a state of cognitive dissonance about why such dangers might be present in the first place (the Australian government refuses to acknowledge any link between our involvement in Iraq and the likelihood of a terrorist attack on our soil).

A prize quote from our much-beloved-statesman-like-bla-bla-bla prime minister, John Winston Howard:

We have to be careful of automatic sunset clauses when we don’t know exactly when the threat against which we are legislating is going to end.

Yes, watch out for those clauses which protect the public from knee-jerk policy making. Maybe the sneaky terrorists will pretend to go away, lulling us into a false sense of security, and then, just when we repeal the draconian laws… BAM!

Now that I think of it, I can’t help imagining that when they come up for review in ten years the laws will be retained, regardless of the level of terrorist activity. If bad shit is happening, we will of course keep them because, you know, bad shit is happening! But if everything’s hunky-dory with everyone feeling safe as houses, we’ll still keep them, because maybe they’re what’s kept us safe…?